- From: <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:38:59 +0000
- To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> > Yes, I mustn't have been making myself clear when I said that you should > use > > the full month name if you can. > > It's only when a client is stupid enough to insist on a short date (for > reasons > > I never understand but figure must have something to do with the physical > size > > That, I would hope, is when you point out to said client that the > system isn't going to be very userfriendly, that the size of the > screen is an unknown factor, and that accessibility actually matters. Sometimes with success, sometimes without. > Not, but the format > > "xx monthname year-with-four-digits" > > work in all contexts; written - of course - fully and in the same > natural language as the document itself. Yes, that's why that was the suggestion I made to begin with, although I wouldn't scream at the thought of month dd yyyy. > If you then want to use the ISO format internally, fine. And of course the only time HTML uses dates internally they must be in ISO format. If designing a human-readable but machine targetted system I'd strongly recommend ISO, but that's even more off-topic than we already are. However, if > you MUST use an abbreviated, locale-dependent, format towards the end > user, then I still suggest dd-mm-yyyy - and, of course, always include > that, as the OP had done. If I MUST use and abbreviated locale-dependent format, I'll use which locale I MUST use. If I MUST use an abbreviated format I'd use the only locale-independent format that's available. Funnily I've been asked by Irish clients (dd/mm/yyyy is the convention here) to use mm/dd/yyyy. They'd rather think mm/dd/yyyy will bring in more dollars than dd/mm/yyyy will euros and pounds. -- Jon Hanna | Toys and books <http://www.hackcraft.net/> | for hospitals: | <http://santa.boards.ie/>
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 08:39:03 UTC